The present work assessed relationship quality with the LMX-7 by Graen and Uhl- Bien (1995) using relationship quality as a synonym for leader-member exchange. Davis and Bryant (2010, p. 522) argue that the LMX-7 most widely addresses the facets of dyadic leader-member exchange but it might exclude other important elements of the construct. Furthermore, LMX is considered multidimensional, entailing elements of respect, trust, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 237). A different publication claims LMX to consist of affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect as displayed in the LMX-MDM Scale (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Besides lacking a unique description of dimensions, LMX significantly varies if rated by leaders or followers, according to Gerstner and Day (1997). It is argued that different outcomes might be retrieved when testing for leader LMX; effects are even suspected to be stronger. The researchers further suggest taking leader- member agreement into consideration. Similarly to the study by Howell and Hall- Merenda (1999) the present work takes member LMX into account. In addition, the study controlled for effects of team members’ tenure with their leader as length of relationship might impact the relationship both individuals form (Graen & Uhl- Bien, 1995). Analyses revealed that tenure with leader did not impact the quality of relationship in this study. Besides, it is unclear how long relationships between leaders and followers existed prior to direct reporting. Correlates of LMX with other variables might also suffer from single-source bias in the present work (Gerstner & Day, 1997).